[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6215-6229]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000


                      Motion to Appoint Conferees

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move that the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with respect to the budget 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour equally divided on the motion.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. President. I understand Senator Reid has 
some motions to instruct. I do not think they will be in order unless 
we yield back the time that has just been announced.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Lautenberg that the 
situation now is that the motion I made to appoint conferees is 
pending. There is 1 hour on it. I am prepared to yield back time on 
that if the Senator from New Jersey is, and then he can proceed to his 
first motion.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are OK with that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the half hour we have.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. And I yield back the time we have on our side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from 
New Jersey, and the Senate would probably like to know, what he has by 
way of motions on his side. How many does he think he is going to have 
this afternoon?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Since the chairman of the committee asked how many I 
think, I am free to give an answer. I think there are four, but my 
guess is that we have to wait to see if there are going to be any more 
or not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Is it not correct, now that the 
time has been yielded back on the motion to appoint conferees, each 
motion to instruct carries 30 minutes equally divided and that is all 
the time available at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Unless and until that is yielded back, another motion 
is not in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are second-degree amendments to those motions in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes; second-degree amendments are in order, 
and they have 20 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we will have one that has to do 
with praising our men in the military which we will attach to this at 
some point. Substantively, unless Senator Lautenberg proposes something 
that prompts a second-degree amendment of some type or prompts us to 
make an amendment, we do not have any contemplated at this time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is hard for me to imagine there is anything here--
--
  Mr. DOMENICI. We can accept them; right?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We will have to kind of slug our way through and see 
how it goes. I appreciate the introduction that the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee presented. We are going to offer our 
motions on instructing conferees.
  Mr. President, are we now in a position to go ahead and offer those?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes; the Senator is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just to recount, there is a half hour equally divided 
on the motions themselves?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                      Motion To Instruct Conferees

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion to 
instruct the conferees on H. Con. Res. 68, the Concurrent Resolution on 
the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the motion be dispensed with.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the right to object. Is it very lengthy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the right to object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object, and let's read it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] moves to 
     instruct conferees on H. Con. Res. 68, the Concurrent 
     Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, to include in 
     the conference report provisions that would reserve all 
     Social Security surpluses only for Social Security, and not 
     for other programs (including other retirement programs) or 
     tax cuts.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The motion is very simple. It instructs the conferees who are going 
to be reviewing the budget resolution to include in the conference 
report provisions that will reserve all Social Security surpluses for 
Social Security and for Social Security only--not other programs, 
including other retirement programs, as has been suggested, and not for 
tax cuts.
  For years, Democrats have been arguing that our top fiscal priority 
should be to save Social Security first, and we feel very strongly 
about that. It

[[Page 6216]]

is, after all, our party's creation that kicked off Social Security, 
and we have spent decades since then protecting the program from 
attack.
  In our view, Social Security represents a sacred trust between the 
Government and the people. It is a trust that should not and must not 
be violated.
  Nearly 44 million Americans now benefit from Social Security, and 
many of them depend heavily on the program for their survival. For 66 
percent of the elderly, Social Security provides half their income. 
Without Social Security, the poverty rate among the elderly would be 48 
percent; roughly 15 million more Americans would be living in poverty 
than do now. For single, divorced, or widowed elderly women, the 
poverty rate without Social Security would be 60 percent--60 percent 
for elderly women.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, under current projections, Social 
Security is adequately financed only until 2034. At that time, just 
when millions of baby boomers will be retired and struggling to get by, 
Social Security may be unable to pay the full benefits to which these 
Americans are entitled.
  We need to act promptly to address this problem. President Clinton 
has proposed policies which would extend Social Security significantly 
to the year 2059. Unfortunately, the majority has rejected those 
policies, and in their place nothing has been proposed. Thus, the 
budget resolution approved by the Senate included nothing to extend 
Social Security's solvency by even a single day.
  Having said that, while the Senate resolution did nothing to actually 
help Social Security, it at least seemed to do no harm. The resolution 
was based on the premise that, at a minimum, Congress should not spend 
Social Security surpluses on anything else. That would not extend 
solvency at all, but at least it would not make matters worse.
  Unfortunately, we now understand that the Republican leadership has 
backed off from even this modest commitment. Instead, they reportedly--
and we have not really seen the details--have agreed to include in the 
final version of the budget resolution a provision that could pose a 
direct and serious threat to Social Security.
  Although we have not seen any final language, this provision 
apparently calls for using Social Security not just for Social Security 
but for other programs as well. Apparently, the provision would allow 
Social Security taxes to be diverted to other things that have some 
connection to retirement security. That could be a catchword. It could 
mean a new privatized Medicare system. Perhaps it could include civil 
service or military retirement programs. More likely, I am afraid it 
could also mean tax cuts for the wealthy that are claimed to somehow 
affect retirement.
  I was stunned when I heard about this provision, and I think it is 
remarkable that the Republican leadership would even consider using 
Social Security surpluses for anything other than Social Security. 
After all, how many times during the debate on the budget did we hear 
about the Republicans' commitment to preserving Social Security 
surpluses? That was supposed to be a centerpiece of their whole 
resolution. But now it appears that when the Republican leadership met 
behind closed doors, their commitment was overwhelmed with other 
concerns.
  This reversal is especially stunning in light of Republican 
criticisms about double counting, and now the GOP seems to want to use 
Social Security surpluses for all sorts of other programs. That sounds 
like double counting to me, Mr. President. After all, you cannot use a 
dollar twice. If you use it as a Social Security dollar for Medicaid or 
tax cuts, that is one less dollar available to pay Social Security 
benefits.
  So we ought to stand up for a simple proposition; that is, to use 
Social Security surpluses for Social Security. That is the message of 
this motion to instruct. It is an effort to reverse yesterday's 
decision and to get the entire Senate on record in support of saving 
Social Security surpluses for Social Security, and exclusively for 
Social Security.
  I know my friends on the other side of the aisle will establish some 
type of elaborate lockbox that will protect Social Security. But given 
the agreement that developed yesterday, it makes one wonder: What will 
Social Security surpluses be locked up for? Will they be locked up for 
tax cuts? For other retirement programs? For some new type of program 
that is given the label ``Social Security''? Or will they be locked up 
to pay guaranteed Social Security benefits, as they are supposed to be?
  I think Social Security taxes should be used for Social Security 
benefits, not for other types of spending or tax cuts that somehow or 
other can be called retirement security. So I strongly urge the 
Republican leadership to reverse the decision that was reached last 
night. Social Security surpluses should be used for Social Security--
and I drum the point home--and only Social Security, not other 
programs, not tax cuts. If we are serious about that principle, let's 
really make a commitment to it. Let's not endorse open-ended language 
like retirement security that could encourage future abuses.
  I hope and urge that my colleagues will support this motion to 
instruct to reverse a commitment to language that permits an open-ended 
use of that money under the umbrella of ``retirement security.''
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has now 14 minutes 55 seconds. The 
Senator from New Jersey has 7 minutes 47 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just make a couple points for 
everyone. First, I think everybody here understands that when you go to 
conference, you go to conference with the House. You do not go to 
conference with yourself. If that were the case, we would rule supreme 
and there would be no need to go to conference, and whatever the House 
thought about any of these measures would be totally irrelevant. I 
think everybody understands that isn't the case. We have to go to 
conference with them.
  Secondly, I would like to make two points about what we do in our 
budget and what the President did so everybody will understand.
  Senator Lautenberg talks about the Republican budget and the lockbox 
that we contemplate and speculates that he does not know what it might 
be used for. Let me tell everybody so they will understand. For 
starters, in the first 10 years the Republican budget, and that which 
will be locked in to be spent as we determine in conference, is $300 
billion--you got it, $300 billion--more than the President proposes to 
set aside for safekeeping for the Social Security trust account.
  Why is that the case? Because we say, put 100 percent of the 
accumulated surplus that belongs in the trust fund in the trust fund. 
For all the rhetoric about who is saving what, we put $300 billion more 
in there than the President, because the President concocted a 15-year 
payout for this trust fund. We have never even had a budget that 
contemplates 15 years. In fact, the President, when he goes beyond 5, 
he does not even have the programs enumerated in his budget, but he is 
telling us all, wait 15 years, and we will put enough money in that 
trust fund that is supposed to be there for some security. We said, put 
it in now as it accrues year by year--not 62 percent of it; 100 
percent.
  In addition, for those who are wondering what we are doing about 
Social Security and what the President does about it, let me remind 
you, we do not spend one nickel of Social Security, of their money, for 
any new program. The President of the United States, in his budget, 
decided that it was not important to save Social Security by keeping 
their money. He had contemplated spending out of the Social Security 
trust fund $158 billion. Let me repeat, we now have a motion by the 
other side of the aisle, our good Democratic

[[Page 6217]]

friends, challenging what we are doing, when the President of the 
United States spent $158 billion, in the first 5 years, out of the 
Social Security trust fund without any apologies--just said, ``Spend 
it.'' We say, ``Don't spend it. Keep it in the trust fund, and put it 
in a statutorily created lockbox that will be tied to debt limits so it 
can never be spent.''
  Having said that, it is really ironic that the other side of the 
aisle claims the President is doing so much for Social Security, and 
they would like to join on his coattails, so much for Medicare, and 
they would like to join on his coattails, and the facts are what I have 
just told you. The facts are what I have just told you.
  Fellow Senators, you do not have to be worried about whether that 
Social Security trust fund is going to be used for tax cuts, because we 
cannot direct that any of that money be used for tax cuts. In fact, go 
read the resolution. It says tax cuts are to come from a mandated 
reconciliation pot of money that is called on-budget surplus.
  Mr. President, forget all the jargon. It means that tax cuts, if any, 
come out of surpluses that have nothing to do with the Social Security 
trust fund, by definition. So tax cuts are going to accrue over a 
decade, and they will come out of surpluses, not the surplus that is 
accumulated in the Social Security trust fund.
  Having said that, once again, the amendment is calculated to play 
politics, and I see no reason why we should not accept the instruction. 
So if the distinguished Senator would like us to accept it, we can get 
on with our business and we can accept it right now. If he would like a 
vote on it, we will tell all our people to vote 100 percent for it 
because, remember, we have to go to conference with the House, and we 
will do our very best, but we will be glad to accept it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I am very happy that the chairman of the Budget Committee is going to 
agree to Senator Lautenberg's language, because there is some confusion 
here, if you read the press reports today. That wouldn't be the first 
time there would be some confusion. But what it says here is that 
``[t]he final budget resolution will also contain language allowing the 
entire $1.8 trillion Social Security surplus over the next 10 years to 
be used for retirement security. . . .'' It could include Medicare, it 
says.
  Here is the nub of the argument that we had in the Budget Committee, 
of which I am proud to be a member. The Democrats on the committee 
wanted to see 15 percent of the surplus dedicated to Medicare and 62 
percent for Social Security. We had a very good debate, I thought, in 
the committee about that. And my colleague from New Mexico made the 
point very clearly that Social Security would be put in a lockbox and 
would be used only for that. And we really did not get anywhere on the 
Medicare debate because we did not set aside anything from the surplus. 
Yes, there is money in there for Medicare at the current level, but 
there is nothing additional out of the surplus. We wanted to see 62 
percent of the surplus for Social Security, 15 percent for Medicare.
  Now we read that that 62 percent would be used for Medicare, in other 
words, stealing that money from Social Security. I am very glad that my 
colleague from New Mexico is going to accept this language. It will 
clarify it. I assume that this report is incorrect and that this 
language will not appear.
  I also hope that this newspaper is wrong when it reports that the 
Dodd-Jeffords language on child care was stripped from the resolution. 
This was a 59-vote majority in this body, quite bipartisan, to do 
something about child care.
  So I am very pleased that we are going to have agreement on this. I 
hope when we look at the budget language--and, hopefully, I will be 
there looking at it with my colleagues--that we will not see such 
language in the resolution.
  I thank you very much and yield back my time to Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
California. She is a valuable member of the Budget Committee and works 
hard in making sure that the commitments we develop are to be met.
  I remind my good friend from New Mexico that we are pleased to have 
his support, that the vagary that develops as a result of this new 
language ``retirement security'' is kind of a red flag. It tells us 
that there is something else. Knowing the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee as I do, when he says he is going to do this, I know 
that he is going to do it. I know when he goes to conference again that 
he is going to make sure that this is held. I am comforted by that 
notion, as are millions of Americans who are one day to get Social 
Security as part of their retirement program.
  This is kind of a happy day. I hope that all of the Republicans will 
support this, as will the Senator from New Mexico, chairman of the 
Budget Committee. I do not see how they can resist.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico whether he is ready to yield back time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Shall we accept the amendment, or does the Senator want 
to have a vote?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like a roll call.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am just wondering if we can't stack a few votes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That wouldn't be a problem. The question is in terms 
of whether we have our other amendments.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If we don't, we will put in a quorum call. How much 
time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 9 minutes 49 
seconds, and the Senator from New Jersey has 4 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield down to 4\1/2\, and then we can both yield 
back the remainder.
  Let me say, first of all, I heard that the Senator from California 
had recently been to my State. Incidentally, I was quite surprised. I 
walked into the airport in New Mexico, our international airport. I ran 
into the Senator and asked her if she was coming all the way to New 
Mexico to try to defeat the budget that we prepared. She told me, ``No. 
I am here for other purposes.'' I was kind of glad of that, and I 
surely didn't want New Mexicans to listen to her about the budget when 
I worked so hard to try to get them to listen to me. She did not quite 
do that, because I looked around to see how much she got and it was 
pretty Democratic, what she did, with a big D.
  Anyhow, let me suggest, Senator, that you should be careful when you 
use these percentages. You say that what we want, speaking for you, we 
wanted 62 percent that the President wanted to set aside, and then we 
wanted 15 percent for Medicare. The budget is a big document, big 
numbers, but I just added those two up, and that is 77 percent.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is right, of the surplus.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, we have 100 percent in the first 10 years. So 
the 15 percent that would have gone to Medicare under the proposal in 
the committee, added to the percent that the President saved of the 
Social Security trust fund, is the astronomical percentage of 77 
percent of the Social Security trust fund. Guess what we did in our 
budget resolution. One hundred. Let's do that one. What is the 
difference there? Twenty-three percent additional accumulated surplus 
in the first 10 years is in the lockbox as we prescribed in our budget. 
Having said that, I relinquish the remainder of my time, if the Senator 
will relinquish his.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Lautenberg motion, 
which would instruct the budget conferees to reserve all Social 
Security surpluses for Social Security, and for

[[Page 6218]]

no other purpose. This is what Senate Republicans promised to do in the 
budget debate just last month. Now, just three weeks later, we are 
hearing disturbing reports that they are poised to renege on their 
pledge. The Republican conferees are contemplating a new raid on Social 
Security. In a move which would reflect a new level of cynicism, the 
Republican leadership is cutting a trap door in their so-called 
``Social Security lock-box.'' Those dollars were raised by payroll 
taxes expressly dedicated to financing Social Security benefits. 
However, the Republicans now want to allow that money to be used for 
any type of ``retirement security'' plan. I hope such reports are 
wrong. But I fear they might be accurate.
  This would open the door to risky schemes that use the Social 
Security surplus to finance private retirement accounts at the expense 
of Social Security's guaranteed benefits. Such a privatization plan 
could actually make Social Security's financial picture far worse than 
it is today, necessitating deep benefit cuts. A genuine ``lock-box'' 
would prevent any such diversion of funds, but not the Republican 
version. A genuine ``lock-box'' would guarantee that all those dollars 
would be in the Trust Fund when needed to pay benefits to future 
recipients. The ``lock-box'' in this budget apparently does not.
  It is bad enough that the budget passed by Senate Republicans three 
weeks ago did not provide even one additional dollar to pay Social 
Security benefits to future retirees, that it did not extend the life 
of the Social Security Trust Fund by one more day. To our Republican 
colleagues, I say: ``If you are unwilling to strengthen Social 
Security, at least do not weaken it. Do not divert dollars which belong 
to the Social Security Trust Fund for other purposes. Every dollar in 
that Trust Fund is needed to pay future Social Security benefits.''
  The Republican ``retirement security'' scheme could be nothing more 
than tax cuts to subsidize private accounts disproportionately 
benefiting their wealthy friends. Placing Social Security on a firm 
financial footing should be our highest budget priority, not further 
enriching the already wealthy. Two-thirds of our senior citizens depend 
upon Social Security retirement benefits for more than 50 percent of 
their annual income. Without it, half the Nation's elderly would fall 
below the poverty line.
  It appears that the Republicans may be planning to take these Social 
Security dollars and to use them instead to finance more tax cuts in 
the guise of ``retirement security.'' If this occurs, there will be no 
debt reduction. There will be no strengthening of the Social Security 
Trust Fund to meet the demands of the baby boomers' retirement. Every 
one of those payroll tax dollars belongs to Social Security, and should 
be used solely to strengthen the Trust Fund. If our Republican 
colleagues have no ulterior motive, the wording of the Budget 
Resolution should state that principle unambiguously. When instead we 
see language as vague and open-ended as ``retirement security,'' 
suspicions are understandably raised. If this gaping trap door is not 
eliminated, the American people will know that the Republican ``lock-
box'' is nothing more than a cynical magician's trick. The millions of 
senior citizens who depend on Social Security will know that the 
Republican majority has abandoned them once more.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Lautenberg motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that we not proceed to the vote 
but, rather, that we have a quorum call now and see if the 
distinguished Senator can muster up another amendment on his side, and 
we will just wait for awhile and see.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before the quorum call is begun, I 
agree with the Senator's mission here; that is, perhaps we can stack 
several votes together, but we will work on that during the quorum 
call.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that it is in order to send 
a motion to instruct conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Under the time 
agreement, the motions to instruct have 30 minutes equally divided.


                      Motion To Instruct Conferees

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a motion to instruct on behalf of 
myself and Senator Daschle and others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] moves to 
     instruct conferees on H. Con. Res. 68, the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, to include in 
     the conference report provisions that would:
       (1) allow targeted tax relief for low-and middle-income 
     working families; and
       (2) reserve a sufficient portion of projected non-Social 
     Security surpluses to extend significantly the solvency of 
     the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and modernize and 
     strengthen the program, before--
       (A) using budget surpluses to pay for tax breaks that would 
     give most of their benefits to the wealthiest Americans, or
       (B) enacting new spending above the levels in the Senate-
     passed version of the budget resolution, unless it is offset 
     in accordance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, I want to take a moment to review the motion to 
instruct very quickly for the benefit of the Members so they have a 
keen awareness and understanding of exactly what this motion is to the 
conferees. This motion is to instruct the conferees to include in the 
conference report the provisions that would allow the targeted tax 
relief for low- and middle-income working families which has been 
presented here during the course of the debate on the budget; and, two, 
to preserve a sufficient portion of the projected non-Social Security 
surplus to extend significantly the solvency of the Medicare hospital 
insurance trust fund and modernize and strengthen the program. We are 
effectively asking that there be the allocation of resources to extend 
the solvency of the Medicare program.
  I think the percentage that we had identified earlier during the 
course of the debate on the budget was 15 percent. What we have 
indicated here is that it would be important to extend the solvency of 
the trust fund before using any of the budget surplus to pay for the 
tax breaks which would give most of the benefits to the wealthiest 
Americans by enacting new spending above the levels in the Senate-
passed version of the budget resolution.
  Effectively what this instruction is, Mr. President, is very easy to 
understand. It says given the size and the significance of the budget 
surplus that we want to have the sufficient allocations of resources 
for the protection of Medicare. In an earlier instruction on this 
particular measure, we included an instruction to have sufficient 
funding set aside for the solvency of the Medicare trust fund before we 
provide any tax cuts or tax breaks for the American people. That is 
basically and fundamentally the issue.
  We in this body make choices and make decisions. This is certainly 
one of the most important ones that we will make, not only for just 
this year, but for future years. We are saying, given the kinds of 
resources that we have available, that we are going to do two things 
with regard to this instruction; that is, to set aside sufficient 
resources for the solvency of the Medicare program, and be serious 
about taking the steps to ensure that there will be the changes in the 
Medicare program that are responding to the particular needs of the 
Medicare program.
  Certainly there are a number of ideas about how we can strengthen the 
Medicare program. I think one of the most important is the addition of 
a prescription drug proposal. The President of

[[Page 6219]]

the United States, in his speech to the American people on the State of 
the Union, indicated that one of his high priorities with the 
restructuring of the Medicare system would be for a program to meet the 
prescription drug needs of the elderly people in this country.
  We want to make sure that we are going to have sufficiency in terms 
of the savings of the projected surpluses, and that then we will have 
an opportunity in the remainder of this Congress for the Congress to 
work its will on the floor of the Senate. I hope that one of the first 
areas of priority would be in the area of prescription drugs.
  As has been pointed out on many different occasions, when the 
Medicare issue was debated in 1964 it lost narrowly here in the Senate 
in the spring of that year. It became a primary issue in the 1964 
election. There was an extraordinary resonance across the country about 
the importance of Medicare. There were 18 Members of the Senate that 
voted one way in 1964 and another way in 1965. They had heard the 
voices of the elderly people in this country in support of the Medicare 
program. When we adopted the Medicare program we did not include 
prescription drugs for one very basic and fundamental reason, and that 
is because about 95 percent of the private programs at that time did 
not include prescription drugs. Now they do. The need is out there.
  We will have an opportunity to do it, and it will be greatly 
strengthened with this kind of an instruction to the conferees. If we 
are able to set aside the kind of surplus that was included in the 
President's recommendations and included in this instruction, then we 
will know that we will have a sound Medicare system. The Medicare 
program will have greater solvency, and we will be able to deal with 
alterations and changes in the Medicare system. And, hopefully, we will 
be able to address the prescription drug issue.
  This issue is so basic and so fundamental that it is really the 
question of a priority. Do we think having broad kinds of tax cuts for 
the American people is preferable to ensuring the financial security 
and solvency of the Medicare system? That is the issue that is 
incorporated in this particular instruction. It is as basic and 
fundamental as that. Do you believe that with the scarce but sufficient 
resources that are in the various surpluses that we are going to say 
let's put a priority on Social Security and Medicare? This instruction 
says we are going to give the priority to Medicare. And many of us who 
are supporting this also give high priority when we are going to have 
that financial security to make sure there is going to be a 
prescription drug provision.
  I see my friend and colleague. I would be glad to yield for a 
question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for 
yielding for a couple of questions.
  First, I thank him for his motion to instruct conferees. As a member 
of the Budget Committee, I can tell you that the Democrats on that 
committee fought very, very hard to get the committee to set aside 
enough funds from the overall surplus that we have to meet the needs of 
Medicare. And many of us brought out points that the Senator from 
Massachusetts has brought out before. I just want to ask him a couple 
of questions.
  Does the Senator not agree that Medicare is really the twin pillar of 
Social Security for our people? In other words, you save Social 
Security, but if you do not save Medicare, then our seniors will have 
to spend their Social Security income to pay for their health care. 
Doesn't the Senator feel that this is the twin pillar of the senior 
citizens' safety net?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has made an excellent point and one which I 
agree with completely. If you look at a profile of who the Social 
Security recipient is, it is a person that is living alone, $12,000 in 
income, a woman 76 years of age who has at least one chronic disease 
and is paying some 19 percent of her income in out-of-pocket health 
care costs. That is 19 percent out of $12,000--paying that percent of 
her income out of pocket for health care. If the Senator understands 
the amount that is being paid out of pocket by even those today that 
are getting Medicare, it is just about what it was at the time of the 
enactment of Medicare.
  So for those that say, well, we really do not have to have this 
instruction, we are going to be able to consider the Commission's 
recommendations, that will effectively require $688 billion over the 
next additional 12 years to get the kind of economic stability that 
would be included in our particular instruction. And that is only going 
to be able to be achieved with higher copays, or higher premiums, or 
higher deductibles. It is going to come out of the pocket or the 
pocketbook of that senior citizen. I don't understand how we can do 
that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have one more question that goes to the heart of the 
Senator's point. What the Republicans are saying is we can reform our 
way. We don't think we need additional resources. They proposed tax 
breaks for the wealthiest people in America instead of saving Medicare. 
What you do is very clearly say, yes, we will support targeted tax 
relief for low- and middle-class families, but we want to save Medicare 
before we give back funds to the wealthiest among us, those at the 
very, very top tier.
  The question I wanted to pose to my friend is this: As I look at 
Medicare and the numbers we have in the Budget Committee, I want to ask 
my friend if he agrees with these numbers. We are told that the 
Medicare program provides health care to 39 million Americans today, 
but by 2032 the number of Medicare beneficiaries will double to 78 
million as the baby boomers retire. So the question for the Senator is 
basically this: We are looking at a program that is very important, and 
we are looking at some good news. We are living longer. This is good. 
We all work toward that. We want to live longer. We want to have a good 
quality of life. But can we just say we can reform our way out of this 
problem, or do we have to commit some of the surplus to Medicare?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct in terms of the size of the 
Medicare population and correct in terms of allocating these additional 
resources for Medicare. Let's understand that the amount that we are 
talking about effectively is money that is being paid in by working 
families. Those are resources that are being paid in by those working 
families. All we are saying is that we believe those working families' 
interests should be protected with the previous instruction on Social 
Security and this instruction on Medicare before we provide tax breaks 
for individuals who are not participants in paying into the system like 
the workers have been in terms of the Medicare system and Social 
Security.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I apologize to Senator Kennedy for not 
being here. I assume it is fair to say that I probably heard his 
argument as we put the budget through. It is similar to the one he made 
before. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have been here. But I just 
couldn't. When the time is up, let me ask if we could get a unanimous 
consent on stacked votes.
  Mr. President, I would like to talk just for a moment about the 
Republican budget as it pertains to a blueprint for our country's 
future. When I have used up about 6 minutes of my 15, will the Chair 
advise me? I appreciate that.
  First of all, let me say to those who are listening that we have a 
situation that is pretty unique in our country, and it is a situation 
that we ought to look at very carefully to see what the public policy 
ought to be and what would be best for America's future.
  The American taxpayer has received a bonanza in new taxes. As a 
matter of fact, there is now going to be over the next decade a huge 
surplus. ``surplus'' means the taxes collected exceed the expenditures. 
That is a surplus. We were used to living in a deficit. ``Deficit'' 
means the expenditures, the program costs, are more than the taxes that 
come in.

[[Page 6220]]

  For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a sustained 
recovery; low interest rates, partially attributable to good, sound, 
budget policies; high productivity, because we have added new machines 
and equipment to the production of service organizations and what they 
sell to the American people, we have more money coming in than we are 
going to spend. Over the decade, it is going to be a very large amount 
of money.
  Where we depart from the Democrats who have been arguing on the 
floor--not all Democrats--the principal position on our side is that we 
think we don't need some of that big surplus paid in by the taxpayer, 
which means they are paying more than we need to run the Government 
year by year; we think a portion of that should go back to the taxpayer 
by way of tax changes that will help our taxpayers and will help the 
economy continue to grow and produce jobs and be a strong economy.
  We say there are three very important things to take care of, one of 
which is to give back some taxes to the American people, who are paying 
in more than they expected in terms of our Government. There are some 
who say we shouldn't do that or the budget resolution ought to state 
exactly how we are going to change those tax laws.
  Frankly, in the Congress we do things a little differently. There is 
a committee that will determine our tax reductions and our tax changes. 
All we can do is say we are making some money available for doing that. 
What we do is take all of the Social Security surplus--not 62 percent 
of it as does the President, but 100 percent of it--and we say that 
accumulation, that surplus, is set aside and cannot be used for tax 
cuts. Under our budget resolution, it is to be used for Social Security 
reform to pay for any additional costs. We think that is very exciting, 
and we think that is better than what the President has in mind. It is 
100 percent of that surplus.
  There is a Medicare program which is very important to seniors. We 
have done three things in this budget regarding Medicare. One, the 
President cut $20 billion more out of Medicare during the next decade, 
and we said cut nothing, don't cut any more by way of expenditures out 
of the Medicare trust fund--$19 billion over 10 years. In addition, our 
budget plan increases Medicare spending by $200 billion over 10 years, 
an average of $20 billion a year. Then, starting in the sixth year of 
this budget, there is an additional $100 billion that does not go to 
tax cuts, does not go to the Social Security fund, that could be used 
by Medicare if Medicare needed it. In fact, we believe this is a very, 
very, ambitious program to make sure Medicare is taken care of.
  I remind everyone that a strong, powerful economy is one of the best 
tools to keep Medicare strong. Just a few weeks ago, the trustees in 
charge said, because things have been going so well, we have increased 
the life of the Medicare fund from the year 2008 to 2015. We have added 
between 7 and 8 years by keeping the economy going with a lot of 
employment and people paying into the Medicare system.
  We believe this budget is good policy for America. We think it is 
just as important to talk on the floor of the Senate about who pays all 
these taxes as what programs we ought to spend the money on. We don't 
want to just discuss how we can spend the money; we want to discuss the 
taxpayers.
  We are saying it is time to fix the Tax Code and make it more fair 
for married couples, put some other reductions in and return some of 
those tax dollars to the American people, because we are worried about 
taxpayers; they deserve our concern.
  At the same time, we have adequately provided for Medicare and 
adequately provided for an assured Social Security; that when the 
changes are made, and only then, will this trust fund money be used for 
Social Security.
  We are involved in an air war over in Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and we are 
going to need more money for that war. Everybody understands we are 
going to do that when we are asked. We will have it. It will change how 
much can go for taxes and how much can be held in reserve. It will 
change some of that, but actually that is a very high priority.
  I say to Senators and my fellow Americans that in our regular budget 
we provided for some very significant increases in defense and some 
significant increases in education. If you add that up, it is a pretty 
good package. We will go to conference with the House. I don't know 
what we can get out of them, but we will get a good budget. It will be 
very much like the one we produced.
  Having said that, I reserve the remainder of my time and hope the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts might yield back some of his 
time at some point.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes 
16 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will use that remaining time so we can 
move along, then ask for the yeas and nays in accordance with the 
leadership proposal, and vote.
  Mr. President, according to the trustees' report on the Medicare 
trust fund, this particular measure will add some 7 years to the 
Medicare trust fund. Now it will be--instead of 2008, in the most 
recent figures it is 2015. With 15 percent, as we talk about, a 
substantial increase, it will provide the stability and solvency of the 
trust fund to the year 2027. That is what this amendment does.
  If we do not take this action, then, if we look over a 25-year 
period, it is going to mean benefit cuts of 11 percent in 25 years, 25 
percent in 50 years, and 31 percent in 75 years, to make up for the 
shortfall.
  It seems to me, given the special circumstances, we ought to protect 
Social Security and protect Medicare. We still have resources, even 
after that, for individual accounts, as the President suggested--close 
to $500 billion for individual accounts, for savings and for investment 
for individuals--and we also have resources that will be available for 
a tax cut.
  But let us say, with regard to Medicare, we are going to provide 
these additional resources and we are going to commit them to our 
Medicare system and then in this Congress we are going to get about the 
possibility of making the alterations or changes in our Medicare 
system, primarily in the area of enhancing prescription drugs, and also 
other changes that will strengthen the Medicare system even further. 
This is a sound, prudent investment.
  Finally, the greatest percentage of the surplus was paid in by 
working families. Working families often become dependent primarily on 
Social Security and Medicare as they age. Some of them get some 
pensions from companies they have worked for. But if you look over what 
is happening, even in terms of the pensions, they are gradually being 
cut back. They are gradually being reduced every single year. Medicare 
and Social Security are the rocks on which our elderly and seniors 
really depend. We have an opportunity to go on record on that measure 
here today with this amendment, and I hope the Senate will accept it.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to support this motion to instruct 
the conferees to set aside some of the on-budget surplus for Medicare.
  The Budget Resolution approved by this body in March made the correct 
decision with regard to Social Security by devoting the off-budget, or 
Social Security, surplus to paying down the publicly held debt. That 
was the right thing to do, especially if we are not going to come to 
closure on a true Social Security reform plan that brings down future 
liabilities.
  While the direction on Social security was the correct course, 
failure to hold some of the on-budget surplus to deal with Medicare 
takes us down the wrong fiscal path. Medicare's financial problems are 
not only more acute than Social Security's but also much more difficult 
to solve. The fact of the matter is that even under the reform plan 
considered in the Medicare Commission, solvency would not be 
significantly extended.
  Given these facts, it seems to me that the smarter fiscal policy over 
the long-term would be to leave some of

[[Page 6221]]

the on-budget surplus to address Medicare. Using it all for a tax cut 
significantly reduces our flexibility to prepare for the retirement of 
the Baby Boom generation and the demands on Social Security, Medicare, 
and our overall budget that will result from the doubling of 
beneficiaries eligible for these programs.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to 
instruct if they are serious about acting in a fiscally responsible way 
to shore up Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute 20 
seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I propound the 
following unanimous consent request, and it has been cleared on both 
sides. It has nothing to do with the amendment that is pending.
  I ask unanimous consent the pending motion and any motions or 
amendments regarding the appointment of conferees to the budget 
resolution be stacked to occur in the order in which they were offered 
at the conclusion or yielding back of time on the motions. I further 
ask that there be 2 minutes before each vote for the explanation and 
the votes in the sequence after the first vote be limited to 10 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Were the yeas and nays included, Mr. President? 
Reserving the right to object--I do not intend to --will the Senator 
ask it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time for all of 
those amendments?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No, Senator; we want to wait until the time has 
expired.
  You want to get the yeas and nays now?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, please.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We can still amend. You could not, but we could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts has 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield it back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If he yields his back, I am going to yield mine back.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield mine back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


     Amendment No. 252 To The Kennedy Motion To Instruct Conferees

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, at the end of the Kennedy motion add the 
following: Include in the conference report, No. 1, amendment No. 176, 
offered by Senators Roth and Breaux, regarding Medicare reform; and 
section 209 of the Senate-passed resolution to the budget offered by 
Senators Snowe and Wyden, regarding the use of on-budget surpluses for 
prescription drug benefits.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 252 to the Kennedy motion to instruct the 
     conferees.

  The amendment follows:

       At the end add the following in the conference report:
       (1) Amendment No. 176, offered in the Senate by Senators 
     Roth and Breaux, regarding Medicare reform; and
       (2) Section 209 of the Senate-passed resolution, offered in 
     the Budget Committee by Senators Snowe and Wyden, regarding 
     the use of on-budget surpluses for a prescription drug 
     benefit.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 20 minutes equally divided on the 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me explain to Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will make a copy of that amendment and distribute 
it.
  What we are going to do with this amendment is simply add to the end 
of the Kennedy amendment two provisions that were voted on by the 
Senate during the debate, just as most of his instruction was already 
voted on. These two sections are essentially as follows: No. 1, the 
Roth, Breaux, and others amendment regarding a bipartisan proposal on 
Medicare; and, No. 2, an amendment offered by the Budget Committee in 
behalf of the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, which 
essentially said that any additional on-budget surplus, non-Social 
Security money, that existed beyond the tax cut--which is, as I 
understand, about $102 billion starting 5 years from now--could be 
available for prescription drugs.
  Essentially, what we will then do is we will get a request for the 
yeas and nays on our amendment. I understand, pursuant to the unanimous 
consent, when it gets called up in order, we will get an additional 2 
minutes, 1 minute per side, to explain it.
  So, essentially I am just asking we add to the end of yours, two 
proposals that have already been adopted by the Senate: One, the Roth-
Breaux et al. on the bipartisan Medicare proposal; and, second, the 
Budget Committee portion, which was Senator Snowe's amendment, which 
said any excess surplus beyond the tax cut and Social Security could be 
used for prescription drugs.
  So we will vote on ours first and see what happens to yours.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator to Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator obviously is entitled to 
conform with the Senate rules. But we are as well. So we will continue 
to go along on this merry chase until we have an opportunity to vote on 
this measure. We are glad to spend whatever time debating Medicare that 
the chairman of the committee wants.
  You can load this up as the rules permit, but the rules also permit 
us finally to get a rollcall, and we are going to take full advantage 
of the rules to make sure we do. I will just let the membership 
understand that now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator 
from New Jersey could tell us, were there any other instructions?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have potentially two more. The Senator from 
Connecticut is going to be offering a motion to instruct, and there may 
be a question about another, which we will find out about in just a few 
minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how does this proceed?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask Senator Kennedy if he will yield 
back time on my amendment. I yield back mine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Massachusetts willing to 
yield back time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Are you talking about the second-degree amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes; it is the first-degree amendment to your 
motion.
  Mr. KENNEDY. No, not at this time, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with reference to the issue that is 
before us, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to votes in order 
to the motion to appoint conferees, the Domenici amendment No. 252, 
which I have just described, be considered a separate motion to 
instruct and the vote occur on, or in relation to, the Domenici motion,

[[Page 6222]]

to be followed, pursuant to the consent agreement, by a vote in 
relation to the Kennedy motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Having said that, with reference to mine, I yield back 
any time I have.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. May I inquire of the chairman, I can offer a motion?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, indeed.


                      Motion To Instruct Conferees

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] moves to instruct 
     conferees on H. Con. Res. 68, the Concurrent Resolution on 
     the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, to include in the conference 
     report the Dodd-Jeffords amendment No. 160, as modified, 
     which passed the Senate on March 25 by 57-40.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, how much time is allowed on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes equally divided, 15 minutes per 
side. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the President.
  Let me begin these brief remarks by once again commending my dear 
friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the committee. We use the word 
``friend'' around here to describe each other with great frequency. On 
numerous occasions, we actually mean it, and this is one of those 
instances. He is one of my best friends in the Senate. So it is with a 
degree of reluctance I rise to offer this motion because this is in 
regard to an amendment that was passed by a pretty good vote, Mr. 
President, 57-40, during the consideration of the budget resolution.
  Occasionally, there are matters that are bipartisan on these budget 
resolutions. I argue strongly this is one of them. Child care is an 
issue that does not have an ideological parent, does not have a 
partisan parent, if you will. This is an issue of which I believe 
people all across the country appreciate the importance.
  The average cost of child care is $4,000 to $10,000 per child. Even 
families that have decent incomes and have two or three children can 
appreciate the cost of child care. One can imagine then, when talking 
about working families who are struggling to keep food on the table, 
how important this kind of a proposal is for them.
  The amendment that was adopted expands an existing program--it does 
not create a new program. It was almost a decade ago that my friend 
from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, and I offered the child care block 
grant, which was adopted. President Bush, to his credit, supported and 
accepted the block grant proposal.
  For almost 10 years now we have had this child care block grant. And 
it's only drawback is that it doesn't have enough funding to reach all 
eligible children--only one in ten can currently receive assistance. So 
Senator Jeffords and I offered, along with 55 other Members of this 
body--12 members of the majority and 45 members of the minority--a 
proposal that would increase the child care development block grant by 
$5 billion over 5 years, about $1 billion a year. It amounts to little 
more than $12 billion over 10 years. We pay for that by reducing the 
$780 billion proposed tax cut by the same amount.
  We also said in this amendment that it is our preference, if there is 
a tax cut proposal, that we also do a child care tax cut for all 
working parents as well as for stay-at-home parents.
  Why do we need to add money to the block grant? When we passed the 
welfare reform package a few years ago to move people from welfare to 
work, all across the country States took what little money they had for 
child care and provided it to the welfare recipient as they came off 
welfare and went to work.
  But tragically, what has happened in Idaho, Connecticut, and many 
other places is, the family that was not on welfare, that was on the 
margin and working, now loses child care assistance. It is a great 
irony in a way.
  So what Senator Jeffords, Senator Chafee, Senator Collins, Senator 
Snowe, Senator Abraham, Senator Frist, Senator Hatch, Senator DeWine, 
Senator Roberts, Senator Campbell, Senator Specter, Senator Warner and 
I, and others, are asking here in this budget resolution is that we 
ought to try to do something about this.
  The people who need this are working people with young children. They 
need the kind of help this block grant can provide. Some people have 
mistakenly said, ``Well, I don't like this program because it says that 
a parent couldn't choose a church-based child-care program.'' That is 
not true. This money can go to church-based programs, neighborhoods, 
families. It is not restricted as to the kind of child care setting 
that a family can choose to use.
  This is a good bipartisan proposal. It is with a great degree of 
reluctance that I offer this motion to instruct. But the reason I have 
to do it--and, again, I have such great affection for my colleague from 
New Mexico; and he can straighten me out on this if he cares to; in 
fact, I wish he would--but I am reading now from this report--the 
``Daily Report for Executives''. ``U.S. Budget, Domenici and Kasich 
agree on final budget.'' This is dated April 13, Tuesday, today. It 
says, my friend:

       Domenici and Kasich also said they had stricken from the 
     final budget plan a Senate-passed amendment sponsored by 
     [yours truly] Sens. Christopher Dodd [of Connecticut] and 
     James Jeffords [of Vermont] that would have reduced the size 
     of the tax cut by $10 billion [over 10 years] and made that 
     money available to a child care program.
       ``What they're going to do is they're going to have some 
     language in there that's going to say that out of the $780 
     billion tax [cut] some consideration ought to be given to 
     families that have child care needs,'' Kasich said of the 
     language in the final budget that will replace the Dodd-
     Jeffords amendment.
       ``And we'll drop all add-ons like Dodd-Jeffords,'' Domenici 
     added.
       Kasich [then] said they had no intention of creating a new 
     child care entitlement--

  This is not new. It is a 10-year program. I am just adding resources 
to it; no question about that--

     but suggested that the final budget will recommend that the 
     child care-related tax [cut] relief be looked at by the tax-
     writing committees ``because there are needs out there.''

  I appreciate the last phrase, ``because there are needs.''
  The problem, of course, with just tax writing is that if you pay 
taxes, you may get the benefit of it. But if you are down at that 
$20,000-a-year level--this is not a great mystery to anybody--the idea 
you are going to get a tax break at that income level that can meet the 
cost of child care is just a fantasy.
  So we want to increase the block grant by $12 billion over 10 years 
nationwide to help these families. I think this body, regardless of 
which side of the aisle we sit on, ought to be able to find room in our 
hearts and our budget for this, if we care about these working 
families.
  We understand the pressures, the tremendous pressures, on these 
families. I was at a child-care center at the Justice Department 
yesterday here in Washington. It is a magnificent child-care center. As 
you can well imagine, they have done a good job down there. But that 
good care costs.
  I spoke to a woman who is a lawyer with the Justice Department and 
has children at the center. Her husband is a public interest lawyer. 
They have three children in that child-care center, twins and a young 
child. It cost them $26,000 a year--$26,000 a year. And they are happy 
just to have a place. The waiting list is a mile long, which is another 
problem we face here and why I offer this motion.
  All over the country we see this scenario replicated--in the State of 
California the waiting list is some 200,000 children. In Texas and 
Florida, there are similar lists.
  So, Mr. President, again, I would love to hear the members of the 
Budget Committee say, ``Listen, you know, we didn't like this amendment 
terribly, but we did have a strong bipartisan

[[Page 6223]]

vote''--that is a pretty strong vote, almost 60-40 here on this 
amendment; it was sponsored in a bipartisan fashion; it was passed in a 
bipartisan fashion--``while we weren't enthusiastic about this 
initially, this is one we are going to take.'' If that is the case, 
then I do not want to have our colleagues have to vote twice on 
something here. I do not like doing that. But when I read here that I 
am dropped, I am history, I am being kind of written off, then you do 
not leave me much choice but to defend myself.
  I am forced to defend it for the families out there who got excited 
about the fact that in this budget resolution we had made a place, for 
the first time in years, to provide some assistance.
  So I plead with my colleagues here to not oppose this, in fact even 
accept this instruction, if you will, and let's see if we can't 
convince some of those recalcitrant voices who do not want to embrace 
the idea that this Congress could do something about working families 
and their children.
  With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does Senator Dodd have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Dodd has 4 minutes 49 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Dodd, let me just put in perspective 
what we are going through here this afternoon.
  I am a mild-mannered guy.
  Mr. DODD. Yes, you are.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That does not mean I do not get excited about things. 
Look, everything we are talking about here on the floor we just voted 
on. You either won or you lost. You happen to have won. Senator Kennedy 
has a proposal. That already was voted on. He lost. Let's see, what 
else do we have? Oh, Senator Lautenberg has an instruction. We already 
voted on that.
  It is interesting. I would just put in perspective for the Senators 
and for those listening, normally--I have been here for a while; I have 
wrapped up a lot of budget resolutions--we appoint the conferees. That 
is what we are doing here, this little administrative job of appointing 
conferees. We normally do it at the same time we pass those 
resolutions. So if we finish at 10 o'clock at night, by 10:15 this is 
gone, they have been appointed. Nobody moves to instruct the conferees, 
because they just voted on it; they already got their instructions 
through their votes.
  We made a mistake. We made a mistake. We should never have seen the 
press last night. We were not obligated to tell the press we had a 
meeting. We like to keep them informed. But now, because of everything 
they said about what we discussed, Senators are saying, ``Well, maybe 
they are not going to do in that conference what the Senate said we 
should do, so we are coming to the floor and reproposing the whole 
thing,'' bringing the issues all back up, even if they lost on them or 
even, in Senator Dodd's case, where he won on them, and we are going to 
have to vote again.
  Actually, everybody should understand, an instruction to the 
conferees, through the process we are doing this afternoon, is nice. It 
is a wonderful thing. You should be very pleased if you win. But the 
House isn't bound by it. That is just the simple truth of it. The 
conference is not between Senators asking for a second vote which will 
make their will the law; they are asking that we do something with the 
House to make them go with us. I am not promising that I can do that. 
If you win here on the floor, I am not promising that I can do that. As 
a matter of fact, some Senators think I can, that if we are to vote 
again on Dodd-Jeffords, I should just go over there and I will win 
that.
  Well, it isn't quite that easy. I do a little better here on the 
floor sometimes with all these Senators from both sides than I do 
sometimes in those conferences. I am not going to offer a second-
degree. We all understand the issue. If you want to vote, we will have 
a vote.
  I guess I could tell you for myself, I understood very clearly who 
voted. There were some Republicans who voted with you. I didn't happen 
to be one. But I am not going to be able to carry any more water with 
any more assurance or any more power in the water that I carry because 
we vote again this afternoon than to go to that conference and wrap it 
up and say, Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords won--not that they won 
this instruction. That would be there. So if you want to save some 
time, you might just urge me to do it better than the news reports, and 
I tell you I am going to try. I tell you that if we can't do that, I am 
going to find some way in the tax instructions to see if we can't do 
something significant in the area of child care through the Tax Code. 
But if you would like a vote, that may be an easier way.
  I say, though, there is a reason that we do not need to vote in 
additional money for this program. I will tell you what it is. I do not 
know the ultimate number, but I understand that almost all the States 
have a very large surplus in the TANF program, the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families program. That is the successor to the welfare 
program, Mr. President. When we sent them the money, we sent them a 
block of money predicated upon a significant caseload and estimates 
about how much it would be reduced.
  It turns out that almost every State has a very large surplus there. 
What they plan to do with it, not every State but a very large number 
of them, is to use it for this program. As a matter of fact, I 
understand the regulations have been approved just yesterday which will 
authorize the States to use their TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families, excesses for the block grant program, which we would still be 
funding for child care. So essentially I think we are going to have an 
expanded child care program. I do not think we need to do this, but I 
do not go to conference based on that. That is just an explanation to 
the Senate as to why a number of Senators did not think we needed to 
vote for that when it first appeared and won.
  Now I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DODD. Before my colleague does that, again, I appreciate my 
colleague from New Mexico, the chairman, has a difficult job. Having 
served on the Budget Committee for many years with the chairman of the 
committee, I have a great admiration for his ability and the difficult 
job he has. I appreciate as well the fact that this is a somewhat 
unique procedure, although we have used it in the past. It is not 
uncommon for it to be done. I hope my colleague appreciates, that when 
I pick up and read that my amendment has been pushed out, before the 
conference has even met, that it makes it kind of hard on me and hard 
on those of us who supported that amendment.
  So, yes, this is taking advantage of a unique situation here, but 
maybe, just maybe if we go into that conference--and I know the 
chairman does not agree with this amendment, but I know he has 
historically respected the will of the Senate even when he disagrees 
with it, which is the mark of a good chairman, in my view, and he goes 
on and says, look, ladies and gentlemen here, not only this crowd in 
the Senate, over my objection voted for this once, they did it twice. 
The bipartisan Senate cares about this and thinks it is an important 
priority. To that extent, it may have some value.
  Mr. President, whatever time I have remaining, I see my colleague 
from Vermont.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just want to say, whatever time Senator Jeffords 
needs, a few minutes, we will make sure he gets them. I would like to 
tell you, since you indicated that you and I have worked together on a 
lot of things, do you know what you could do for me that would be the 
best thing going? Not to have so many votes on budget resolutions. What 
is happening, we spend so much time voting on them that Senators are 
wondering what this whole process is all about. This year probably 50 
percent of the votes, maybe 60 are all on the budget resolution and the 
four or five today. My job is getting more difficult because of that. 
Pretty soon Senators will be saying maybe it is not worth all this 
trouble.

[[Page 6224]]

  How much time do you need?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Five minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do you have any left?
  Mr. DODD. I don't know if I do or not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 2 minutes 50 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You yield your 2, and I yield him 3.
  Mr. DODD. Absolutely.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rushed over here in hopes of getting 
to the floor on time, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to 
speak on this very important issue.
  I have worked with the Senator from Connecticut for years on child 
care. Every time we think we have a victory, it somehow disappears. Yet 
the need for quality child care does not disappear. The need continues 
to increase. We must take advantage of the information we have learned 
and recognize that the early years of life are so incredibly important 
in a child's development. The first 3 to 5 years are critical. At this 
point, we do little or nothing for this age group and these are the 
most important years of your life in many respects. Fortunately, few 
babies get totally ignored during that period. But this is the period 
in time which the brain develops most rapidly. It is the one which can 
be most damaged by the lack of adequate child care.
  I will be introducing on Thursday and I thought it was going to be 
the filler for what we did on the budget bill. We were all ready to go, 
and now we are back to ground zero on this issue. Well, I am going to 
introduce the bill on Thursday in hopes that this issue does not go 
away and that it will continue to be heard before the conference. We 
must continue to try to do what must be done for the children of this 
country.
  In addition, we have to look at businesses and do something to give 
them the incentives to have their own child care. We have to make sure 
that we take care of the most critical thing and to make sure that we 
deliver quality child care and learn how to maximize the period of time 
in a child's life which is so critically important.
  I want to do everything I can, and I am sure the Senator from 
Connecticut joins with me in saying we are not going to let this issue 
go away. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this country is in a 
position to allow our children to maximize their opportunities in 
school by having the best child care possible.
  This is an incredibly important issue. I know that the Senator from 
New Mexico is with us in the sense that he understands the essential 
aspects of maximizing opportunities during the most critical period in 
a child's life. In the past, the Senator has been supportive of us, and 
I hope he continues to do so. At this point, I will close and say, I am 
going to plow forward. I know we will work with the Senator from 
Connecticut and we are not going to let this issue go away.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, does the Senator yield back his time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that means we have one proposal left, as 
I understand it.
  I yield the floor.


                      Motion To Instruct Conferees

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, moves to 
     instruct conferees on H. Con. Res. 68, the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, to include in 
     the conference report provisions that would provide 
     additional funding for income assistance for family farmers 
     above the level provided in the Senate-passed resolution.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are dealing with the budget and the 
naming of conferees, and a number of priorities have been discussed 
here on the floor of the Senate. That is what a budget is, establishing 
priorities. I offer this motion to instruct, and it is very simple. The 
Senator from New Mexico said he would like to take this, and if he 
does, I will not ask for a recorded vote.
  In this motion, I move to instruct the conferees on H. Con. Res. 68, 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, to 
include in the conference report provisions that would provide 
additional funding for income assistance for family farmers above the 
level provided in the Senate-passed resolution.
  Why am I asking for favorable consideration on this motion? 
Yesterday, I read on the Senate floor a letter from a North Dakota 
woman that I want to read today. Her name is Susan Jorgenson. She wrote 
in her letter, describing the plight of family farmers, something that 
I think everybody listening to this debate should digest. Susan 
Jorgenson has lost her husband. He died last August. She said he had 
diabetes, but she said:

       . . .what I really feel caused his death was trying to make 
     a living as a family farmer.

  She said:

       I had an auction last week to sell the [farm] machinery so 
     I can pay off some of the debt that [we] incurred after 26 
     years of farming. I have a 17-year-old son who would not help 
     me prepare for the auction and did not get out of bed the day 
     of the [auction] sale because he was so heartbroken that he 
     could not continue [to farm] this land [that he loved].

  She said this of her husband:

       He chose to farm rather than to live in Phoenix where he 
     had a job with Motorola [early on] because he wanted to raise 
     his children in a place with clean air, no crime, and good 
     schools. He worked very hard, physically and emotionally, to 
     make this farm work and its failure was . . . no fault of his 
     own.

  That is what this farm wife says about her deceased husband.
  What is happening on the family farm? Everybody is making money but 
them. They raise the crop and give it to a railroad; the railroad makes 
a record profit hauling it. They raise steer and sell them to the 
slaughter house; the slaughter house makes a profit and the farmer goes 
belly up. They raise grain and put it into a cereal manufacturing 
plant, and they then take that wheat or rice and puff it and send it to 
a grocery store as puffed wheat or rice. The company that added the 
puff makes a mint and the farmer goes broke. Everything that touches 
what the farmer raises makes record profits, and the farmers are going 
broke in record numbers.
  We have a serious emergency on family farms. Here is a headline 
concerning prairie dogs. Some groups have now decided --including in 
the Government--that we have a big problem, that we have to save 
prairie dogs. I don't know if these folks have driven around my part of 
the country much, but we have lots and lots of prairie dogs. We don't 
need a Federal program to ensure that we are going to have them in our 
future. Prairie dogs will take care of themselves, thank you.
  What we lack are family farmers. Every day in every way, every week, 
every month, and every single year, we lose more and more family 
farmers. Now, we have farmers raising wheat and selling it for 
Depression-era prices in constant dollars. How would you like to be 
receiving wages that are Depression-era wages right now in constant 
dollars?
  How about a minimum wage for family farmers? We debate minimum wage 
here on the floor of the Senate and I always vote for it. I think the 
folks at the bottom end of the ladder need to be given the chance to 
raise themselves up a bit.
  What about an opportunity to provide a fair price for farmers? Wheat 
prices and grain prices have collapsed. Cattle prices and pork prices 
have collapsed. Farmers are having auction sales and 17-year-old boys 
won't get out of bed because they are so heartsick about losing their 
farms.
  We are told by people around here: Well, that's just the way the 
market system works. That is not a system that works at all. The system 
says to those who gas the tractor in the spring, plow the ground, plant 
the seed, and harvest the crop that their work has no

[[Page 6225]]

value but the giant agrifactories that make a fortune with it have 
value. I am saying that this Congress must do something about that. 
This Congress must decide that family farmers matter in this country's 
future.
  I have watched the chairman of the Budget Committee fight for things 
that matter to him. I have watched him fight for the National Labs and 
so many other things that are so important to him and there is no more 
tenacious of a fighter in the Senate than the Senator from New Mexico 
about the things that matter to him. I feel the same way about family 
farmers. That is what matters to me. I am not saying that [farming] 
doesn't matter to him or anybody else. I am not making a judgment about 
that. I am just saying that we have a full-blown emergency in rural 
America.
  I held up a chart yesterday that showed the counties in this country 
which are losing population, which have lost over 15 percent of their 
population in the last 15 years. What you have is a huge red swath in 
the middle of America being depopulated--the middle part of our 
country.
  We need a farm program that works. And when we see auction sale 
posters from wall to wall in small towns, and small town businesses 
boarded up--so many auction sales that they have to call retired 
auctioneers out of retirement to handle the sales--we ought to 
understand that this counts for something in this country and that we 
need to develop a public policy that says we are going to try to do 
something to stop the flow of family farmers who are leaving the land 
and discovering that their hopes and dreams have come to an end.
  Every single month, we add a ``New York City'' in population to this 
Earth. Every month, a new ``New York City'' is added in population to 
this Earth. Yet, farmers are told that the food they produce has no 
value. The market system says it has no value. That is not logical. 
Over half of the people on this Earth go to bed with an ache in their 
belly because they don't have enough to eat.
  I have mentioned time and again--and I will do it again--that in 
Sudan people talk about old women climbing trees to gather leaves to 
eat because there is nothing to eat. Ask yourselves about the people in 
refugee camps today and what their needs are. It is food. Somehow this 
system of ours, in a Byzantine way, says that those who produce the 
food ought not to get full value for it, but those who make it into 
cereal, those who haul it, those who add value somehow should achieve 
record profits. There is something wrong with that system.
  I hope this Senate will go on record saying that we need to do more 
and better. My personal feeling is that we need to take the caps off 
the loan rates. The farm bill--which I didn't vote for because I didn't 
think it was a good bill--was saying we will take away with the fine 
print what we promised to give you in the large print. We promised a 
loan rate, and we promised that that loan rate would produce $3.25 in 
wheat, but in the small print it was limited to about $2.58.
  Let's take away that provision that limits the amount of support and 
help farmers during this period of collapsed prices and see if we can 
give them the opportunity to have a decent income when prices collapse. 
If we don't build a bridge across those valleys, nobody will do it. We 
will be left with a country full of giant agrifactories farming from 
California to Maine. We will get the food all right, but it will be 
more expensive, and nobody will be living in rural America. We will 
have lost something very important--family farmers, small towns, main 
street businesses, and a very special and unique part of this country's 
character that comes from that part of America.
  So I am offering this motion to instruct conferees to ask that money 
be added above the Senate level for income support for family farmers.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I greatly appreciate the kind 
remarks of my good friend, and I say to him that on some of the issues 
he cares about, such as agriculture and the problems of the family 
farm, he has as much tenacity as anybody around here. I compliment him 
for that.
  We are going to accept his motion because it says we ought to try to 
do better in conference than we did here, and everybody understands 
that we will do that. If the Senate accepts this, we will try to do 
that. However, in defense of the budget resolution, I will make two big 
points that are very important.
  The budget resolution increased the mandatory spending, the spending 
for agriculture, $6 billion over what it would have been but for the 
change we have made--$2 billion in each year, more or less, in this 
budget resolution.
  At first we decided we would do $4 billion at the behest of some 
Senators from the middle of the heartland of the agriculture country. 
They asked for more. We put $2 billion more in. That has been done. Why 
do I say that? Because the President of the United States, who has his 
agriculture Secretary traveling all over the United States in 
agriculture country talking about the needs of the family farm and the 
needs of the farmers, did not put one penny of increase for agriculture 
in their budget. I don't know whether they expected that we would come 
along because we have Senators who really pushed this and we would put 
the money in.
  But I believe for a President of the United States in the midst of an 
agriculture disaster, more or less, to leave it up to Senators to have 
to put more money in for agriculture--but you can count on it. They 
won't be remiss in going out there and talking to the farmer about what 
they did. They should put up their hand, like this, and say they did 
zero. At least we put $6 billion new money in for which the 
distinguished Senator has thanked the Budget Committee when we put it 
in. And so did his colleague from his State. He thanked the committee. 
You put in $6 billion. Nobody did at the White House. There was 
nothing.
  So it isn't as if we are not concerned and as if we did nothing. As a 
matter of fact, we have been spending a very healthy amount of money 
for agriculture. And we are going through some cyclical problems in 
agriculture, with parts of the worldwide economy not in very good 
shape. And they used to buy a lot of our agricultural products. We know 
that. We are getting better at producing more with less acreage, and 
there seems to be no limit to that. We get better all the time. In 
other words, the farmer is producing prolifically in the United States, 
be it the family farmer or the corporate farm. We are producing large 
amounts.
  Having said that, I don't know ultimately how we resolve this issue, 
but for now we are going to conference with this proposal saying we 
ought to do more, if we can. And, frankly, I appreciate the Senator 
bringing it to all our attention.
  It will be accepted now, if he doesn't mind.
  I yield any time I have.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Conrad, wanted to 
speak for at least 5 minutes. I understand he is on his way. I hope we 
can wait for just a moment. It appears he could use the remaining 5 
minutes of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be vested back with any 
time that I had remaining. I thought we would finish. That is why I 
yielded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me take a minute to say that I 
understand the point the Senator from New Mexico made. I appreciate the 
additional $6 billion that was added over the 5 years. My point is, it 
is far short of what we need in terms of income support. It is the case 
that the administration budget did not do nearly what it needed to do. 
But there comes a time at some point when the urgency of the situation 
in rural America really requires us to say this isn't about us or them 
anymore; it is about what we are going to do together to respond to a 
real problem of significant consequence to this country. We will simply 
not have family farmers left unless we together, Republicans and 
Democrats in Congress,

[[Page 6226]]

recognize that we have a farm bill that says when market prices 
collapse, it's response is too bad. That can't be the farm bill 
response.
  When market prices collapse, if we want to save family farmers, we 
have to build a bridge across those valleys. Only the largest corporate 
farms will survive a collapse in market prices. They are big enough and 
strong enough to survive. Family farmers can't and won't. So if we care 
about having people live out on the land, if we care about the special 
quality family farms and small towns give this country, then we must 
reconnect and provide some kind of basic safety net for family farmers.
  Again, I see all these headlines about prairie dogs. They are going 
to save the prairie dog. God bless the prairie dog. There sure are 
plenty of them in my State. We don't need a special effort to save 
prairie dogs. We need to save family farmers. That is the message, and 
that is the urgency, in my judgment, for a public policy debate here in 
Congress and the establishment of the correct priorities in this budget 
to say to family farmers, ``You matter.'' Some say we need a national 
missile defense system. Yes, that might be the priority for some. But I 
happen to think we need a farm program that works for family farmers. 
In the absence of it, we are going to see wholesale bankruptcies and 
more and more auction sales, and this country will have lost something 
that is very important to its character and its economy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to the Senators who are not 
here but are listening to what is going to be going on on the floor, 
that in about 6 or 7 minutes, I hope not much longer than that, we are 
going to start voting. There is already a consent agreement to vote on 
everything. All votes are stacked this afternoon. That means we will 
have about five or six votes. After the first one, they will be 10 
minutes, with both sides having 2 minutes to explain each proposal, and 
on each instruction 1 minute on the side. So we ought to be starting by 
4:15, and perhaps in an hour we will be finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota, Senator Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for 
offering this motion, and for bringing to the attention of our 
colleagues in the Senate the disastrous circumstances we face in 
American agriculture.
  I represent North Dakota. I can tell you that in agriculture in our 
State we are on the brink of a depression. We are the victims of a 
triple whammy of bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy. Bad prices 
are the lowest prices for farm commodities in 52 years. The bad policy 
is the last farm bill that was passed, and some of our trade policy 
that has left America vulnerable to a very intense effort by our 
competitors. Mr. President, our chief competitors--the Europeans--are 
spending 10 times as much to support their farmers as we are spending 
to support ours. We are, in essence, saying to our farmers, you go out 
and compete against the French farmer and the German farmer, and, while 
you are at it, take on the French Government and the German Government 
as well. That is not a fair fight.
  In addition to the bad prices and the bad policy, we are also stuck 
with bad weather. We have had 5 years of overly wet conditions in North 
Dakota. The result has been the development of a disease called scab. 
That is a fungus. It has dramatically reduced production. There are 
parts of North Dakota that saw their production reduced 40 percent.
  So you put all of this together, what do you have? You have an 
economic calamity, a disaster of its own, with the lowest prices in 52 
years and production reduced because of bad weather, and because of an 
outbreak of disease that is unprecedented in this century, and couple 
that with the bad policy of a bad farm bill that has been put in place 
that makes no note of what happens to farm prices but that cuts each 
and every year the support that is given to American agricultural 
producers at the exact time our competitors are dramatically increasing 
what they are doing for their producers.
  Mr. President, Members of the Senate, this is an emergency. It is a 
disaster. It is stunning in its proportion. I just completed a series 
of meetings across the State of North Dakota. Everywhere I went, 
producers took me aside and said unless something is done and done 
quickly, we are faced with a calamity of losing tens of thousands of 
family farmers across the heartland of America.
  I hope very much that our colleagues will support this motion that 
instructs the conferees to provide additional funding for agricultural 
policy reform. It is critically needed. It must be done. The 
consequences could not be more serious. A failure to act will lead to 
the unraveling of the farm safety net in this country and will mean we 
will lose literally tens of thousands of farm families this year. We 
are not talking about sometime in the distant future. We are talking 
about right now. We are talking about an economic calamity.
  Again, I hope my colleagues will support this motion. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't believe I need to respond. I gave my response 
to the principal sponsor. We have agreed to accept the instruction.
  I yield back any time I might have and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, perhaps we could engage in a 
parliamentary discussion regarding order. If I am correct, the first 
vote would be on the Lautenberg Social Security motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is 1 minute on each side to discuss the motion.
  The second vote will be on the Domenici motion. We will explain that 
when the time comes. Then we will vote on the Kennedy Medicare tax 
breaks motion. Then we will vote on the motion of Senator Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for all Senators who might be listening, 
the first motion to instruct is Senator Lautenberg's on Social 
Security. This is essentially consistent with the budget resolution 
that we voted for on our side of the aisle. I ask every Senator to vote 
for it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Vote on Lautenberg Motion to Instruct

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 1 minute and the Senator from New 
Jersey has 1 minute. Have the yeas and nays been requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senators should be on notice we will start this vote in 
2 minutes.
  This motion to instruct says to the conferees, adopt the language 
regarding the Social Security trust fund that is in the budget 
resolution which passed the Senate with every Republican and one 
Democrat supporting it. Since it is consistent with the budget 
resolution, and I still have to go to conference with the House under 
all circumstances, I recommend on our side, at least, that everybody 
vote for it.

[[Page 6227]]

  I yield back any time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this motion is pretty simple. It 
instructs the conferees on the budget resolution to include in the 
conference report provisions that would reserve all Social Security 
surpluses for Social Security, and only Social Security--no other 
programs, including other retirement programs, and not for tax cuts.
  I hope when the conference is held that the distinguished chairman of 
the Senate Budget Committee will be there to say, ``Here is a vote that 
is potentially 100-0 or 95-5. This is serious.''
  It is not part of a scheme to go into conference and say, ``Sorry, we 
are dropping it.'' We don't want it dropped. I know that the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee doesn't really want it 
dropped.
  We can differ about the approach, but all of us will make a single 
statement: If Social Security has a surplus, we want it there for the 
people who are going to retire when their time comes. It is as simple 
as that.
  I am pleased to have the support of the chairman of the Budget 
Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent due to surgery.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``Aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                           [Roll No. 82 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moynihan
     Warner
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if you would get everyone's attention, I 
will tell everybody where we are going.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have three remaining votes. There is 1 minute in 
between each one. Then we are finished.
  I say while many of the Senators are here, I am sorry that we have to 
vote over again on the same issues we voted on 2 weeks ago, but 
essentially most of the motions are revoting on what we already voted 
on. Had we appointed conferees the very night we did this budget 
resolution, there would not have been any time to have motions to 
instruct the conferees. So I am trying to hurry through, but I cannot 
do any better.


                  Vote On Domenici Motion To Instruct

  What is up now is the Domenici motion to instruct. It reaffirms the 
Senate position on the Roth-Breaux amendment calling for Medicare 
reform. That really extends solvency.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Will those having 
conversations in the well cease their conversations. We are not going 
to be able to proceed until the conversations cease or those having 
them go somewhere else.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just finish quickly.
  The Domenici instruction takes into consideration the Breaux-Thomas 
bipartisan plan which includes prescription drugs as part of the 
reform. And this instruction includes that we adopt the Snowe-Wyden 
provision which allows budget surpluses not currently allocated to the 
Social Security trust fund, because it is not needed there for taxes, 
that those surpluses may be used for major Medicare reform.
  I hope we will adopt this motion. It will be followed by a Kennedy 
motion that I will speak to later.
  I yield back any time I might have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. My friend and colleague, as we could expect, explained 
correctly what this motion effectively does. If you vote in favor of 
the motion, effectively you are saying you are not going to use any of 
the surpluses of the Federal budget for the Medicare system, No. 1, 
because that is the recommendation of the Commission. And secondly, 
before we get overly excited about a reserve fund on the prescription 
drugs, just read page 90 of the report and you will see that the trust 
fund is not utilized until there is significant extension of solvency 
for Social Security. That is defined as 9 or 12 years. That comes to 
either premium increases or cost benefits of some $686 billion. So it 
is never going to go into effect.
  I am all for having an existing fund. But this isn't it. It is right 
here on page 90, the requirements for the fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And it says it will not go into effect unless there is 
significant solvency from 9 to 12 years. That is what the trustees say, 
$686 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Domenici 
motion to instruct the conferees. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
absent due to surgery.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

[[Page 6228]]



                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                   Vote on Kennedy Motion to Instruct

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there are now 2 minutes evenly divided 
on the Kennedy motion to instruct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this motion is very simple. It says to 
devote a portion of the surplus--not all of it, just some of it--to 
saving Medicare before using it for a tax cut or new spending. This 
policy is supported by Alan Greenspan and by 100 leading economists 
because it makes economic sense and because it makes sense for 
Medicare.
  My friend across the aisle has talked at length about how much he and 
his party care about Medicare, but that budget resolution does not 
devote one thin dime of new resources to Medicare beyond those required 
by law. This vote is a test: Tax cuts versus Medicare. That is the 
issue.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate rejected an amendment on this 
by a vote of 56-43 just a few days ago. It is the identical issue.
  Senator Kennedy would have us believe that the President's approach 
to putting 15 percent of the surplus into IOUs in the Medicare trust 
fund will help Medicare become solvent. He also suggests, Mr. 
President, that leading economists support the President's IOU; that 
is, we will pay for it later. They support that. They support it 
because we are not spending the money. But we already save $400 billion 
more than the President and we would apply it to the national debt, 
which is what the economists thought was good. Our budget is better 
than this in that regard and it does not put IOUs into a fund, which in 
this case is a postdated check that somebody will pay for later on--our 
kids and grandkids.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the IOU is a payroll tax. This is the 
full faith and credit of the United States. That is what we are talking 
about. It is very clear what this issue is. Let's make sure we have 
solvency in the Medicare system before tax cuts.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the Kennedy motion, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
absent due to surgery.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Vote On Dodd Motion To Instruct

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleague from Vermont, 
myself and many others who supported this 2 weeks by a vote of 57-40 I 
want to express my gratitude to my Republican colleagues for supporting 
that amendment that day. Unfortunately, the House conferees, or 
potential conferees, have indicated they intend to drop this amendment 
which would add over 5 years $5 billion to the existing child care and 
development block grant, despite the fact that this was a bipartisan 
amendment supported by a bipartisan coalition of Members here in the 
Senate.
  I would not be asking for this vote except I think it is important we 
send a clear message out of this Chamber that we care about working 
families who need child care assistance.
  With the few seconds remaining, I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle to vote in favor of this motion. It will keep the issue alive.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate voted by a vote of 57 to 40 
to approve this amendment when we had the budget resolution. We are 
going to go to conference and try to work it out. I am not asking 
anyone to vote against it. In terms of the chairman's position, vote 
however you wish. I don't think there is a total Republican position 
because 15 Republicans voted for it last time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID, I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
absent due to surgery.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan), would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

[[Page 6229]]



                                NAYS--33

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the underlying 
motion to authorize the Chair to appoint conferees.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Smith of 
Oregon) appointed Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gramm, 
Mr. Gorton, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Conrad, Mrs. Boxer and Mrs. Murray 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________